A message from God

[Paraprakrti]

Favoritism exists in Christianity. Discuss that and discuss ramifications of James to the "breaker of law"

You are absolutely correct. Christianity favors God. Therefore if God does not condone homosexual marriage as a religious observance, then it will not be considered a religious observance. There are no ramifications from James if you understand those verses in this context.

There is no religious observance of having a rich man sit at your side and a poor man at your feet. Therefore James is correct in stating that we should not play favorites in this way. There IS a religious observance called marriage wherein two individuals of opposite sex are united. Therefore we should not recognize rights for a marriage that is not legitimate in the first place. At least not as far as we concern marriage in it's religious aspect. Otherwise in modern times marriage is simply a legal agreement. On that basis you are better off.

 

[Paraprakrti]

It follows to give NO consideration to homosexuals OR heterosexuals for the purpose that we are, in the truest sense, simply belonging to God. That is our designation. Sexual consideration is nil. The only thing that matters is that we have faith in God and show that faith by our works, which is what chapter 2 of James is discussing. This means that we act according to God's instructions. From a mundane perspective these instructions will appear as favoritism in many instances. That is the way it is. When one thing is right, naturally the opposite is wrong. I am sure you are aware of this principle.

 

[Pah]

Ok. So what? James doesn't give examples of non-humans. James also does not give examples of marriage. What to speak of homosexual marriage, which you have yet to produce one condoned example of in Biblical text.

You have a real problem not understanding James 2 regardless of the particular brand of favoritism

First of all, what does this have to do with your applying James 2:1-17 to homosexual marriage? Secondly, what of the social disparity? A rich man can pay for things that a poor man cannot. That is common sense. The point in these verses is that we should not consider the less fortunate to be lesser beings. We should give them equal consideration because to God we are all equal. Also, those verses do not state that the kingdom of God is promised to the poor. It does not follow that if you are materially poor, therefore you will go to the kingdom of God automatically. James 2:5 states,

Listen CLOSELY. In the "meeting" of the congragtion before God and Christ, the rich man makes the poor man stand somewhere (and the implication is apart for the rest) or sit on the floor at someones feet. Got it? The rich man demeans a man whom God loves, a man of greater faith than the rich man. Understand yet? The rich man insults the poor man. This rich man fails to follow the second greastest commanment. Are you still with me? For those who do not follow the second commandment, they are deemed breakers of all the law. By not following the commandment the rich man became abominable in the eyes of God. Sound familiar? Because social justice is not given to the poor man, the rich man become as detestable in God's eye as you think the same-sex individual is. And finally, claim all the faith you want as the rich man does, I can not judge on what is in the heart of the rich man or you, but I can easliy see, as spoken of in scripture, that deeds, social injustice and an un-loving attitude, convict everyone who practises them

Go in peace.

 

[Pah]

You are absolutely correct. Christianity favors God. ...

And some Christians are bigots, maligning other Christian faiths, demeaning other faiths, some place women in "pigeonholes", favoring only thier social tradition. It is amazing what one miss when there is tunnel vision involved.

 

[Pah]

It follows to give NO consideration to homosexuals OR heterosexuals for the purpose that we are, in the truest sense, simply belonging to God. That is our designation. Sexual consideration is nil. The only thing that matters is that we have faith in God and show that faith by our works, which is what chapter 2 of James is discussing. This means that we act according to God's instructions. From a mundane perspective these instructions will appear as favoritism in many instances. That is the way it is. When one thing is right, naturally the opposite is wrong. I am sure you are aware of this principle.

James 2 discusses 2 instrucrions from God that superceed the old law.

 

[Paraprakrti]

You have a real problem not understanding James 2 regardless of the particular brand of favoritism

How would me making the above statement toward you be any less valid? James 2 doesn't speak of marriage and it also doesn't speak of man-animal relationships. You and I, sir, are in the same boat.

Listen CLOSELY.

Ok.

In the "meeting" of the congragtion before God and Christ, the rich man makes the poor man stand somewhere (and the implication is apart for the rest) or sit on the floor at someones feet. Got it?

Yes.

The rich man demeans a man whom God loves, a man of greater faith than the rich man. Understand yet?

NO. I do not understand "yet". I understood and continue to understand.

The rich man insults the poor man. This rich man fails to follow the second greastest commanment. Are you still with me?

Define "with me".

For those who do not follow the second commandment, they are deemed breakers of all the law. By not following the commandment the rich man became abominable in the eyes of God. Sound familiar?

Yes. It does sound familiar. Now all you have to do is stop assuming that I am arguing from the "rich man's" perspective. Or is it that you are really the rich man for judging me?

Because social justice is not given to the poor man, the rich man become as detestable in God's eye as you think the same-sex individual is.

Stop. I have not stated that I think this. You do not know how I think God feels toward people who are attracted to the same sex. Nor is this a question of how I "think" God feels. You are assuming that I think God detests homosexuals. And in this assumption you are wrong. I do not condone the "God hates ****" protesters, but you have presumedly placed me in this group.

And finally, claim all the faith you want as the rich man does, I can not judge on what is in the heart of the rich man or you, but I can easliy see, as spoken of in scripture, that deeds, social injustice and an un-loving attitude, convict everyone who practises them

What constitutes a society, as per the Bible, does not recognize homosexual marriage, what to speak of homosexual marriage rights? That is the bottom line and that can be understood without all this extraneous sentiment you are attempting to put on it and put on me. You are wrong to assume that because homosexual marriage has no place in Christianity, that therefore means God detests homosexuals. I am not and have not said or implied that.

Go in peace.

That's the idea. Will you go with me?

 

[Pah]

Is it the will of God to devalue and to dehumanize the lives of women, people of African ancestry, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people? On the question of race and gender, most Americans, both Christians and non-Christians, clearly see the answer as no. But on the question of sexual orientation, many of our heterosexual brothers and sisters are biblically challenged.

Quoted from a .pdf file http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sec...EMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

No, it is the will of God to provide the social justice as commanded in James 2

 

[Pah]

That's the idea. Will you go with me?

Not as long as you are injust. You go to places not condoned by me or God.
And James says so.

 

[Paraprakrti]

And some Christians are bigots, maligning other Christian faiths, demeaning other faiths, some place women in "pigeonholes", favoring only thier social tradition. It is amazing what one miss when there is tunnel vision involved.

Utterly pointless. You have not a valid point here, sir. My statement didn't require you telling me what some people do in the name of Christianity, nor is it relevant. We are discussing whether or not James chapter 2 can be used to award civil rights to individuals observing homosexual marriage. The answer is yes, it can, but only if you can rationalize homosexual marriage taking place in a Christian society in the first place. Let us clear up that point before we start looking at other "social traditions".

 

[Paraprakrti]

Not as long as you are injust. You go to places not condoned by me or God.
And James says so.

Why don't you respond to the substance of my post, to which that last comment was referring?

 

[Pah]

Why don't you respond to the substance of my post, to which that last comment was referring?

What constitutes a society, as per the Bible, does not recognize homosexual marriage, what to speak of homosexual marriage rights? That is the bottom line and that can be understood without all this extraneous sentiment you are attempting to put on it and put on me. You are wrong to assume that because homosexual marriage has no place in Christianity, that therefore means God detests homosexuals. I am not and have not said or implied that.

You are wrong to base an exclusion for Christian society on civil society. Nobody is challanging your particular bent to your society. Yet you, in your injustice, challange civil society. God and the constitution do not give you that right. You may preach all you want to society - you have no constitutional right to form the greater society in your myopic vision of scripture. You do not follow James when the medium of homophobic theology includes unmarried couple; this, regardless of your opinion of same-sex marriage. James says for you to support defeat of all amendments that include unmarried couples. James says to support all of Christian faith not mentioning orientation.. You apparently, do neither. And in failing James you fail all the law. When God calls all of his creation to gather, you must support all that are called. Same-sex couples are among the calling.

It seems that you may be expressing what you wish or were told while impressionable about the Bible. You must find an apologetic to reconcile James to your "laws of purity" You haven't.

 

[Pah]

...You have not a valid point here, sir. My statement didn't require you telling me what some people do in the name of Christianity, nor is it relevant. ...

It is relevant when you put the "best face" on Christianity

 

[Krie]

yeah well it is a normal fact that people are selfish and even if you help the poor man, you are still inside a very selfish person so at least the one that makes him sit at his feet will show that he is selfish compared to the other that will hide it.

 

[Pah]

The bottom line, , is that James does not care why you are injust, why you do not love as commanded. If you are convicted of either of these two sins you will not inherient the kingdom of God.

You see, Paraprakrti, it doesn't matter what anybody else's sin is , it is only yours you have to worry about. You don't get any points when you are concered about or correct another's sin. If you treat them unjustly, it's your problem. Look after the timber in your own eye when you practise favoritism

 

[Pah]

yeah well it is a normal fact that people are selfish and even if you help the poor man, you are still inside a very selfish person so at least the one that makes him sit at his feet will show that he is selfish compared to the other that will hide it.

I see! It is better to hide that fact that you are sinful and worse if it shown to others?

Maybe I misunderstand.

 

[Paraprakrti]

You are wrong to base an exclusion for Christian society on civil society.

Sir, you have just defeated yourself. On one hand you refer to the Bible to justify how society should be, and on the other hand you separate "Christian society" from "civil society". Your premise is of using the Bible as a blueprint for society. That is the premise you are accepting here in this thread. Therefore it would be logical of you not to be inconsistent with yourself. These are clearly tactics of someone who realizes they have been defeated but will not admit it.

Nobody is challanging your particular bent to your society. Yet you, in your injustice, challange civil society. God and the constitution do not give you that right. You may preach all you want to society - you have no constitutional right to form the greater society in your myopic vision of scripture.

Clearly nobody is challenging me on anything at all. You are challenging yourself! Constitution?? This thread is not about the Constitution. Unless by "Constitution" you mean, "Bible" because that is what this thread is about ~ civil rights in a Christian society. I don't have to have a Constitutional right since this has nothing to do with the Constitution. When you wrote this response, did you really think it would fly?

You do not follow James when the medium of homophobic theology includes unmarried couple; this, regardless of your opinion of same-sex marriage. James says for you to support defeat of all amendments that include unmarried couples. James says to support all of Christian faith not mentioning orientation.. You apparently, do neither. And in failing James you fail all the law. When God calls all of his creation to gather, you must support all that are called. Same-sex couples are among the calling.

Homophobic theology? What are you talking about. How have you jumped to the conclusion that we are dealing with a homophobic theology? Why is it that all you gay rights activists automatically label anyone who disapproves of the homosexual lifestyle being condoned in society as "homophobes"? If I don't like pickles, am I a pickle-phobe?

Wrong. James does not say to support all of Christian faith. It says to support all. And you are correct, it does not therein mention orientation. So we support and give rights to everyone, but you have not shown how, in a strictly Christian based society, a homosexual marriage exists in the first place in order for there to furthermore be the consideration of civil rights for a married homosexual couple. Do you or do you not understand this? Let me explain it this way: the rich man may sit at the foot of the poor, or the poor at the foot of the rich, or they may sit right next to each other. The point is that in a Christian based society, both the rich and the poor have a sitting place. On the other hand, homosexual marriage has no sitting place in a Christian based society. Therefore where is the question of giving them rights in a Christian based society? If they have no place in such a society then no one can speak of any "rights" for that which is not recognized in the first place. Homosexual marriage mightaswell be invisible pink unicorns as far as a Christian based society goes.

You write, "When God calls all of his creation to gather, you must support all that are called. Same-sex couples are among the calling."

Yes, that would follow. When God calls his creation to gather, that includes same-sex couples (since they are also part of creation). But what does this have to do with the non-existence of homosexual marriage in a Christian based society?

It seems that you may be expressing what you wish or were told while impressionable about the Bible. You must find an apologetic to reconcile James to your "laws of purity" You haven't.

Would I also need an apologetic to reconcile James regarding 40 year old men marrying 8 year old girls?

Why is this burden of reconciliation on me? It is actually your burden to show that homosexual marriage exists in a Christian based society.

Actually, I am not against homosexual marriage in modern society. I argue simply based on the premise of this thread. That is, using the Bible as a blueprint for society and civil rights.

By the way, what are my "laws of purity"? Where did you come up with this phrase? You certainly didn't get it from me.

 

[Paraprakrti]

It is relevant when you put the "best face" on Christianity

Here you go again. I haven't put any face on Christianity. I have simply debated your points based on your premise. Therefore if anyone has put the "best face" on Christianity, it is you.

 

[Paraprakrti]

The bottom line, , is that James does not care why you are injust, why you do not love as commanded. If you are convicted of either of these two sins you will not inherient the kingdom of God.

Yes. Therefore we love everyone. You have simply redefined "loving everyone" to include homosexual marriage rights and proceeded in this debate. My friend may be really sick and the doctor says not to give him any sweets otherwise he will get worse and perhaps even die. Now, he has rights. If he demans a piece of candy, would my giving it to him be out of love? This is the nature of your argument. You've simply defined what constitutes love as that which pleases your mammon-serving propensity. Real love means engaging one in the service of God and considering everyone as equal devotees of the Lord. That is love, as per religious understanding. We will give rights to people in every facility that exists. In a Christian based society there would also be no rights in the pornography industry. Does that mean there is a lack of love or a breaking of law? No. In a strictly Christian based society, you would not find a priest to marry the same-sex couple in the first place. Such a thing is simply not in the best interest of people in a Christian based society. On that note, unrestricted dating and sex life is not in the best interest of people in a Christian based society, or in Muslim or Hindu based society as well.

You see, Paraprakrti, it doesn't matter what anybody else's sin is , it is only yours you have to worry about. You don't get any points when you are concered about or correct another's sin. If you treat them unjustly, it's your problem. Look after the timber in your own eye when you practise favoritism

I am not worried about other's sins. This has NOTHING to do with it. I am simply arguing on your premise. It is as simple as that. Stop trying to make this out to be something that it is not. Let's put that red herring baby to bed. You do not know what is just to speak of what is unjust. This thread isn't about the whims of Pah. It is about society and civil rights as per the Bible. I am not condemning anyone, nor am I looking down on anyone. I am being straightforward and matter of fact concerning the premise of this discussion. It isn't about my eye or anyone else's eye. It is about society and civil rights as per the Bible.

 

[Pah]

All favoritism is sinful. Any neighbor not loved is another sin. It matters not what the neighbors sin is. It only applies to you and puts your soul at risk.

 

[Pah]

This thread ... It is about society and civil rights as per the Bible.... It is about society and civil rights as per the Bible.

Nope! It's about the scripture that addresses Christians and tell Christians how to act